THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. AD2PRO MEDIA SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/236/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC01033481202006 February 2023Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The court did not answer the questions of law, stating they would be considered in an appropriate case.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order concerning assessment year 2013-2014. The assessee argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 1 Crore.

What were the issues?

The appeal raised questions regarding the time-barring of orders under sections 201(1) and 201(1A), and whether services received by the assessee constituted 'Royalty' or 'Fee' for TDS purposes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201,Section 201(1A),Section 9(1)(vii),Section 195

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

ITA No. 236 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 236 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-1(1) 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095 …APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) AND: M/S AD2PRO MEDIA SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. NO.10, 2ND FLOOR BANNERGHATTA ROAD J.P.NAGAR-III PHASE BENGALURU-560 078 …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. V. CHANDRASEKHAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20.03.2020 PASSED IN ITA NO.499/BANG/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW

Digitally signed by YASHODHA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

ITA No. 236 of 2020

STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.499/BANG/2019 DATED 20.03.2020 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 1(1), BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal by the Revenue challenging the order dated 20.03.2020 in ITA No.499/Bang/2019 passed by the ITAT1, "A" Bench, Bangalore, has been admitted to consider following questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that orders passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) are time barred as same are passed after six years from end of F.Y.2010-11 without appreciating that the Memorandum to Finance Bill 2009 makes the intent of legislature very clear on the issue of not prescribing any time limits for exercising powers under section 201 and 201(1A) due to challenge in administering the recovery of taxes from NRI’s and also there is no time limit prescribed in said sections in respect of payments made to Non Residents are concerned?

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature in holding services received by the assessee cannot be considered

1 Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench

- 3 -

ITA No. 236 of 2020

as ‘Royalty’ or ‘Fee’ for included services and that the assessee was not under obligation to deduct TDS on this payments when conditions set out in section 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA as well as section 195 are fully satisfied to resulting in invoking of provisions of section 201(1) and 201 (1A) of the Act?

3.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that there are conditions for invoking section 201(1) and 201 (1A) are not satisfied in case of assessee ignoring that services rendered by Non Resident Entity is nothing but Royalty as per section 9(1) (vii)?

2.

Heard Shri K.V. Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellants-Revenue and Shri A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-Assessee.

3.

At the outset, Shri Shankar submits that tax effect is less than Rs.1 Crore and hence, this appeal is not maintainable.

4.

Shri Aravind does not dispute the said submission.

- 4 -

ITA No. 236 of 2020

5.

In view of the above, this appeal stands dismissed. The questions of law are not answered and kept open to be considered in an appropriate case. No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

YN List No.: 1

More judgments on Section 201

All 1,566 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →